FEGIRLITY of VIRTUE

woman-3311315_1280What is the nature of the human Animal as prior to social construction of imposed distortion by the evils of ethnocratic patriarchy? This is surely a most essential question to pose. Posing THIS ESSENTIAL QUESTION and seeking to provide multiple answers needs indeed become precisely central to polymorphously individualizing social engineering. Who are humans and what are the specific characteristic of the human animals more generally and not just individually? What is the nature of happiness and how is associated with virtue?

Initially upon birth (which among human is always extremely premature as constituting an extreme zoological aberration) is there no distinction of gender other than the patriarchal gaze of perception of genitals. Yet it is typically considered extremely important to declaratively pre-perform the child’s ostensible psychological gender by discursively pre-reducing this to patriarchal interpretations of genitalia.

There is not much distinction of gender between toddlers although they are systematically treated differently on the basis of patriarchal perception whereby it is PRESUMED that androgenic genitalia automatically entails male psychological gender, that gynogenic genitalia automatically entails female psychological gender and that intersexed genitalia IS A THREAT which requires GENITAL MUTILATION. The absolute ignorance and prejudice involved is astounding and horrifying.

We need consider our own absolutely astounding COLLECTIVE PREJUDICE towards children whereby we systematically treat children differently on the basis of genitalia in contexts where this has ABSOLUTELY ZERO LEGITIMACY LET ALONE RELEVANCY.

Everyone is what is known as “feminine” as prior to becoming ruined by ethnocratic patriarchy. Western males tend to become “masculine” after puberty while Western females tend to become “masculine” after menopaus in constituting social construct of biological reproductive change. We need consider that what is known as femininity is the natural prior original condition while masculinity is the unnatural condition as normatively imposed by ethnocratic patriarchy.

This requires us to respond to the patriarchal claim that females are sexually attracted to masculinity. What is it specifically that many females are attracted towards in this respect? It is dominance as playing erotic games of dominance in social interaction is SEMIOTIC LOVERAPE or SEMIOTIC HATERAPE and often something something in between.

When females play the same game of EROTIC SOCIAL DOMINATION towards males is it perceived no differently than when performed by males towards females. The only difference is that it is far more common for males to perform this than for females to perform this. Why then is it more common for males to perform this than for females? 1) Because of social expectations, 2) due to female fears of being a branded “a prostitute” and 3) because pre-existing patriarchal social domination makes it seem “natural” for males ONLY to perform this.

BDSM is typically conceived of as a minority subculture, yet the term BDSM usually only refers to contractually agreed non-commercial sexual interaction. Non-consensual social games of BDSM however exist across society and is central to many forms of seduction. This is e.g. so with MILF seduction, a popular theme in pornographic videos. Since it is usually males who perform adult seduction on females is social seduction domination usually considered the prerogative of males and so females who perform this in public certainly do risk becoming FALSELY accused of “being prostitutes”. In fact, before the global “luxurization” of sex work which commenced in the 1990s was it very common for female sex workers to play erotic social domination games on males perceived as potential customers.

It is thus clear that neither masculinist misbehavior nor attraction towards is is somehow innate upon conception by genetically determined futurologidal development of genitalia. It is no secret however that teenage boys tend to find it EXTREMELY AROUSING to become subjected to female games of social erotic domination. BDSM is universal and we of course need ask why is this so? For the simple reason that human beings are commonly turned on by semiotic/behavioral asymmetry. This condition of erotic asymmetry is in no way exclusive to the BDSM spectrum but is found in many other socio-erotic practices and heteroculture is but one example. E.g. is it common in same-sex relationship for one party to be more assertive and for the other to be more compliant as in the butch/femme relationship. It is also common for visual aesthetic markers such as clothing to be important elements in erotic role play known as flirtation. Yet at the same time are we attracted to persons who are psychometrically similar to ourselves.

This obviously raises the question as to the genetic basis of these behaviors and the answer is that this remains to be studied scientifically and not just individually so. Is it a human universal condition to be attracted 1) to asymmetry in social markers and 2) psychometric properties that mirror one’s own?

This of course has been systematically ignored by the phallocentric pseudo-science of sexology with its IDEOLOGICAL emphasis on ETHNOCRATIC INTERPRETATIONS OF ANATOMY. It is in fact astounding how what is known as “sexology” in medical style systematically ignores scientific insights of gender science despite sexology being largely devoted to the study of gendered physical intimacy.

The next question relates to which psychometric properties that we are individually/structurally attracted towards and this too has not even slightly been studied by the patriarchal pseudo-science of sexology. Is it possible that we are attracted to psychometric dissimilarities as well? This has never between studied let alone considered since it is pervasively assumed by sexologists that interpersonal sexual attraction is ENTIRELY AT ITS BASE a matter of anatomical attraction. This of course is pseudo-scientific BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM.

Psychometrics thus needs play a significant and indeed FUNDAMENTAL role in the STUDY of what is known as SEXUALITY. The prejudicial notion of “paraphilia” has caused much harm in legitimizing EXTRAJUDICIAL police intelligence persecution against any INDIVIDUAL OR COMMUNITY OF INDIVIDUALS as “seen” as TRANSCENDING THE TERROR AND TYRANNY OF INFERNAL HETEROCULTURE.

This brings us to the question of so called “nature and nurture” which is typically pseudo-scientifically misconceived of as a dialectic relationship which it certainly is not as as there is also the phenomenon of biological factors influencing each other in for example different genes in the same body influencing the expression of yet other genes. Now let us now look at the sexual interaction between two persons which certainly and indisputably so involves multiple biological factors and multiple social factors in a manner which is typically highly psychologically confusing. The body surely is not one and even cells have social relationships between each other and social relations within constituent elements within the body influences the development of the human genome whether this leaves a hereditary imprint or not.

Psychometrics documents the statistical degree of heredity of psychometric properties in for example psychopathy having a 75% heredity and autism having a a 90% heredity. This is fairly strict science in almost constituting natural science and it is astounding how the tools of psychometrics have been so systematically under-utilized by the patriarchal pseudo-science of “sexology”. It needs however be emphasized that statistic heredity is the outcome of a vast number of interaction of factors which are certainly not reducible to any any kind of “metaphysical” carno-phallogocentrist dichotomy of semiotic domination. The number of factors involved is so astoundingly vast that the outcome may seem coincidental, yet this complexity certainly requires rigorous and meticulous scientific attention indeed.

Finally does this bring us to the question of THE STRUCTURAL TASK of UNDOING SEXUAL REPRESSION and RETURNING HUMANITY TO PARADISE. WHAT IS PARADISE? The ancestors of humans used to live in rainforests and were highly obviously very extremely sexually active in accordance with human sexual human nature as are still our closest relatives, the BONOBOS, a.k.a. the GRACILE CHIMPANZEES whose societies are matriarchal and where social conflict is resolved by means sexual intercourse.

SEXUAL REPRESSION IS PURE EVIL AND AS IT IS STRUCTURALLY IMPOSED AND INDIVIDUALLY EXPRESSED IS REVERSAL OF SEXUAL REPRESSION VERY DIFFICULT TO PERFORM INDEED. THIS MEANS THAT THIS IS A COLLECTIVE TASK OF THE GLOBAL ARMED FEMINIST SOCIAL REVOLUTION. IT NEEDS HOWEVER BE STRONGLY CAUTIONED THAT THERE NEEDS BE VERY STRICT BASIS IN SCIENCE AS THE WORLD MUST NOT BE TREATED AS A LABORATORY AND SO NEEDS CONCEPTUAL/SOCIAL/TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION FIRST BE TESTED OUT IN LABORATORY CONDITIONS OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE SOCIAL SPACE BY MEANS OF APPLIED QUEER FIELD ANTHROPOLOGY. WHAT IS CLEAR HOWEVER IS THAT HUMAN BEINGS NEED SUBSTANTIALLY AID EACH OTHER IN THE COLLECTIVE RETURN TO FEGIRLITY, THE CONDITION AS EXISTING AS PRIOR TO THE ONSET OF INFERNAL SEXUAL REPRESSION AS STRUCTURALLY IMPOSED BY PROFOUNDLY EVIL ETHNOCRATIC PATRIARCHY.